Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.

So I'm on the water committee in our village concerning our high nitrate levels (which show up in the fields surrounding our town on all sides). Only three of us on this committee are villagers- the rest are farmers who have been throwing nitrogen on their fields, willynilly, for too many years. They kinda want to keep doing it because they don't have time to soil test (almost all have 'main jobs' apart from farming). So, we have to fund the soil tests.

Not only do they get subsidies for their product, they get subsidies to hopefully not continue to ruin our ground water. All of them sell their corn for ethynol. Every last one of them.

We also subsidize ethynol in Nebraska.

Quoting krysstizzle:

I'm wondering what, exactly, your point is in posting this.

There are other studies that show the opposite or mixed results (this one out of Iowa State, showing mixed results, for example). There are plenty of others.

And production isn't a problem. We produce more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet and feed them well. Distribution is the issue.

Again, comparing the pros and cons, weighing the benefits and costs, sustainable farming (which may or may not be completely organic, btw) comes out on top every single time.

Besides, "organic" is close to meaningless these days. The FDA, USDA, and other regulatory institutions are bought and run by corportations with some kind of vested interest.

I think a quick lookat the articles posted by those who express fear and anger towards genetic engineering reveals little dicernment and however magnificently educated, a lack of understanding (through no fault of their own) about science and research.

Okay, petty but...

I have a difficult time taking the advice to 'be discerning' from someone who can't spell and/or spell check.

It's amazing how much money talks when it comes to a lot of studies too. All those Ivy league professors get a lot of their money from companies for doing "studies. "

Quoting krysstizzle:

There is no conclusive evidence that genetically modified seeds cause harm to human health. Conversely, there is no convlusive, long-term evidence that genetically modified seeds do not cause harm to human health. Following that, corporations that control GMOs have a lot of money. Money talks, and money writes the laws. If you think differently, you're fooling yourself. Therefore, the liklihood of the FDA or USDA seriously assessing potential risks of GMOs is basically nil.

The vast majority of people against GMOs are not fearful little chickens with their heads cut off, running around screeching about scary science. Quite the opposite. The majority of people that are against GMOs for any variety of reasons are educated and discerning.

So. Try again. :/

Quoting coronado25:

The point is to be dicerning when it comes to one's sources of information. The usual anti gmo fodder is linked to either nothing, quackery, or unfounded hysteria. I am not against "organic", gmo, or whatever is next in our future for agriculture. I Am against the anti gmo sensationalized bad journalism and the fears that are based on it and wish everyone would learn a little more about gene expression and how genes work.

So beyond ludicrous. Our water issues are just one: a lack of the stuff. Most of the farmers here grow water guzzling crops with flood irrigation, all for stuff that gets shipped out. This, in the middle of a desert in the middle of a drought. Smh.

Also, the fact that conventional crap ag is subsidized out the yahoo? Pretty impressive that organic yields are 25% less and not more, particularly when conventional ag's whole purpose is higher yields. Organic practices have a lot of purposes aside from that.

Quoting Raintree:

So I'm on the water committee in our village concerning our high nitrate levels (which show up in the fields surrounding our town on all sides). Only three of us on this committee are villagers- the rest are farmers who have been throwing nitrogen on their fields, willynilly, for too many years. They kinda want to keep doing it because they don't have time to soil test (almost all have 'main jobs' apart from farming). So, we have to fund the soil tests.

Not only do they get subsidies for their product, they get subsidies to hopefully not continue to ruin our ground water. All of them sell their corn for ethynol. Every last one of them.

We also subsidize ethynol in Nebraska.

Quoting krysstizzle:

I'm wondering what, exactly, your point is in posting this.

There are other studies that show the opposite or mixed results (this one out of Iowa State, showing mixed results, for example). There are plenty of others.

And production isn't a problem. We produce more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet and feed them well. Distribution is the issue.

Again, comparing the pros and cons, weighing the benefits and costs, sustainable farming (which may or may not be completely organic, btw) comes out on top every single time.

Besides, "organic" is close to meaningless these days. The FDA, USDA, and other regulatory institutions are bought and run by corportations with some kind of vested interest.

I think a quick lookat the articles posted by those who express fear and anger towards genetic engineering reveals little dicernment and however magnificently educated, a lack of understanding (through no fault of their own) about science and research.

I would disagree that ALL aspects of conventional farming are unsustainable.

In fact, a great many practices of conventional farming are VERY sustainable - they were adopted for erosion control and increased productivity - to an extent, productivity is an issue and does have to be balanced with other considerations.

So first, define 'conventional', and then, define 'sustainable'.

Then explain to me how we really actually 'produce enough food for the whole world', in fact we do not, and even if we could, the 'we just can't get it to them' IS, in fact, KIND OF A PROBLEM.

In other words, if you can't distribute the food, who gives a shit how much you make?

LOL.

But in fact we do NOT produce 'enough food for the world'.

Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Quoting krysstizzle:

Well, not every single one. That's kind of the point of sustainable, that it be viable in the long run, the flip side being that conventional isn't. At all.

Quoting lancet98:

Every single one of these discussions misses the point:

Even if an unsustainable agriculture were less productive it still may be the only practical choice long term.

If one looks solely at food waste globally, that comes close to the amount of food needed globally. And of course access is a real problem, I never said it wasn't. It could be due to any great number of things, all of which should be addressed. So yeah, it doesn't matter how much is produced if it can't or doesn't get where it needs to. Hence the ridiculousness of the claim that we must focus solely on increasing yields (the battle cry of conventional ag).

As for definitions, conventional basically encompasses the behemoth monocultures requiring high chemical inputs and which are generally not suited or adapted to their particular environment.
Sustainable practices encompass many different types of ag production, and rightly so. No single practice will work in all environments.

Conventional ag (as stated above) does not have the patent on erosion control. Many sustainable methods are far better at it.

Quoting lancet98:

I would disagree that ALL aspects of conventional farming are unsustainable.

In fact, a great many practices of conventional farming are VERY sustainable - they were adopted for erosion control and increased productivity - to an extent, productivity is an issue and does have to be balanced with other considerations.

So first, define 'conventional', and then, define 'sustainable'.

Then explain to me how we really actually 'produce enough food for the whole world', in fact we do not, and even if we could, the 'we just can't get it to them' IS, in fact, KIND OF A PROBLEM.

In other words, if you can't distribute the food, who gives a shit how much you make?

LOL.

But in fact we do NOT produce 'enough food for the world'.

Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Quoting krysstizzle:

Well, not every single one. That's kind of the point of sustainable, that it be viable in the long run, the flip side being that conventional isn't. At all.

Quoting lancet98:

Every single one of these discussions misses the point:

Even if an unsustainable agriculture were less productive it still may be the only practical choice long term.

Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.